Supreme Court of India
SRI GODELA SATCHIDANANDA MURTHY (D) BY LRS.versusDY. COMMNR., ENDOWMENTS DEPTT., A.P. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 585
- Decided
- 15 May 2007
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The temple and Samadhi constitute a public religious institution under the Act, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellant owned land where his father's Samadhi and a temple with idols were constructed. The public contributed to the temple's building, purchased entry tickets, made donations, and regularly attended pujas, prompting the Deputy Commissioner to order registration of the institution as a public religious institution under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. The appellant challenged this classification, arguing that the site was a private family shrine, that the Deputy Commissioner’s order violated natural justice, and that no public participation was proven. The Supreme Court examined statutory definitions, prior case law on Samadhi of saints versus ordinary persons, and the factual evidence of public contributions and regular worship. It held that the institution possessed the characteristics of a public religious institution, that the appellant’s own admissions and conduct invoked estoppel, and that the Act’s provisions applied despite the presence of a residential house on part of the property. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The nature of the institution: whether it is a public religious institution under Sections 38 and 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966.
- Whether a Samadhi of a saint, as opposed to an ordinary person, can render the property a public religious institution.
- Whether the evidence of public contributions, ticket sales, regular worship and facilities establishes public character.
- Whether the requirement of a Shastraic basis is essential for classification as a religious institution.
- Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order is a nullity for violating principles of natural justice.
- Whether the doctrine of estoppel applies based on the appellant’s admissions.
Legislation cited
- Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966s. 2(22), s. 2(26), s. 38, s. 39, s. 77
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Subjects
public religious institutionprivate templeSamadhiendowmentestoppelregistrationcharitable trustAndhra Pradesh Endowments Act
Judgment
A SRI GODELA SATCHIDANANDA MURTHY (D) BY LRS.
v.
DY. COMMNR., ENDOWMENTS DEPTT., A.P. AND ORS.
MAY 15, 2007
B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.)
Religious and Charitable Institutions: ,_
1-.
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and
c Endowment Act, 1966; ss. 2(22), 2(26), 38, 39, 77:
Hindu religious Institution and Endowment-Nature of-Private or
public-Held: Not only plaintiff but the public also helped in constructing
the temple in question-Though Samadhiltomb by itself may not be a
permanent dedication involving public character of religious institution but
D
it acquires such character if it is Samadhiltomb of a Saint-It was clearly
not a case where Shastraic basis held to be the sine qua non for declaring
the institution a religious institution-Members of the public were regular
visitors in the institution/temple in question-They were paying their
obeisance offering pujas-Members/public could visit the temple offering
E pujas on payment of amount itself is indicative of the fact that they could do
so as of right-The institution in question was established with the help
extended by the disciples of the guru and member of public and not by the
family members of the plaintiff alone as a private place of worship-Fae/um
of issuance of entry tickets/pamphlets as also contents of certain documents/
letters containing certain vital admissions not denied by the plaintiff-Such
F conduct of on the part of the plaintiff could clearly go to show that the
Judgment of the High Court determining the institution in question as a
public institution and therefore requiring registration does not suffer from -1"
any infirmity-Rule of estoppel attracted-Besides, the dedication was made
prior to its using for residential purpose-Merely because, the plaintiff has
G a residential house in the portion of the trust property, the same is not
outside the purview of the Act-Evidence Act, 1872-Estoppel.
Father of plaintiff no.I-appellant owned a piece of land and after his
:"' ....
death, his dead body was buried in the same property. A Samadhi was
constructed thereon by Plaintiff No.I, who later shifted his residence therein.
H 762
GOOELA SATrnIDANANOA MURTHY fDJ BY LRS_ i· DY. COMMNR .. ENDOWMENTS OF.PIT.. A.P. 763
On the said property, he installed statutes of his father, his guru and also A
idol of Godess Gayatri Devi. He named it as "Shri Simha Saila Puri Virat
Guru Mandiram" and "Sri Simha Saila Puri Gayatri Peetam". When his
mother died in the year 1979, her dead body was buried by the side of her
husband in the same compound. A tomb was also constructed thereon.
Respondent No. I - Authority issued a notice to the plaintiff for registration
of the temple/ institution as a public institution within the meaning of Sections B
38 and 39 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowment Act, 1966. An application for deletion of the said institution from
the list of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment was
filed by plaintiff No.I before the Author. The application was dismissed by the
Authority. Aggrieved, plaintiff No.I filed a suit, which was decreed by the trial C
Court. Authorities filed first appeal before the High Court which was allowed
by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Appellant contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is a
nullity being violative of the principles of natural justice; that in view of the
fact that the District Judge had inspected the property personally and recorded D
his observations, the High Court should not have interfered therewith; that
no member of the public having been examined by the respondents to prove
public participation in the affairs of the trust nor the public character thereof
having been proved, the High Court committed an error in arriving at its
findings; and that no preaching of any religious tenets to disciples being E
undertaken by them and the suit property being not a place of worship for the
general public but one for the family, it should have been held to be a private
institution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Not only the plaintiffs, as would appear from the evidences F
brought on record but also the public had also made contributions for
construction of the temple. For the purpose of entering into the temple, tickets
used to be sold. A Hundi meant for public donation was also installed. A Medical
Unit meant for the visiting public was found to have been set up there. A hall
was constructed within the premises of the institution known as Gita Bhawan. G
While applying for water connection, admittedly, the plaintiffs categorically
declared that the same was necessary for the visiting public and not for any
domestic purpose. An inspection was made and it was found that the temple
used to be visited regularly and the average number ofvisitors per day was.
about 30 to 40. Regular pujas are also held in the said temple.
[Paras 11 and 12) [768-D, E, Fl H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
A 1.2. In view of the fact that members of the public co.uld visit the temple ~
only on payment of some amount is itself indicatin of the fact that they could
do so as of right. (Para 24] (773-C]
1.3. When the legislature makes legislation, the existing state of affairs
and the basis on which such legislation has been made would be presumed to
B ban been known to it. Whereas the property for construction of a Samadhi
or tomb by itself may not amount to a permooent dedication invoMng public
character of such institution, a distinction must be borne in mind about a
tomb constructed on the Samad hi of an ordinary man and a saintly person. In ·-
}-
a case falling within the letter category, the answer to the question should be
c rendered in the affirmative. (Para 17) (771-C-DJ
Saraswathi Ammal and Anr. v. Rajagopal Ammal, (1954] SCR 277;
Malayammal and Ors. v. A. Malayalam Pillai and Ors., (1991] Supp 2 SCC
579; N. Ganesa Iyer v. President of Board of Commrs. for Hindu Religious
Endowments, AIR (1954) Madras 1027, referred to.
D
1.4. Ordinarily, even the body of an ordinary Hindu would not be buried.
It would be cremated. The very fact that the brother of the appellant was not
buried there is itself a pointer to show that the same was not a family custom.
'1'
[Para 18] (771-EJ
E
1.5. It was clearly not a case where Shastraic basis was held to be the
sine qua non for the purpose of arriving at a decision that the institution in
question would fall within the purview of the terms 'religious and charitable
institution' or not. [Para 20) (772-F, GJ
F Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.,
(1964] l SCR 561, followed.
--t-
Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa, owner of Shri Vithal
Rukhamai Sansthan v. The Charity Commissioner, State of Bombay, (1976) 2
sec 417, relied on.
G
1.6. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that only because members
of the public are freely admitted to the temple, that by itself would not be
sufficient to come to the conclusion that the temple was a public institution. ;"
[Para 22] [773-BJ
H
GODELA SATCHIOA/IOANDA MURTHY tDlB' LRS 1 DY COMMNR. ENDOWMENTS DEPT!., A_P 765
Hari Bhanu Maharaj of Baroda v. Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, A
(1986 J 4 sec 162, referred to.
1.7. The Act itself recognizes Samadhi. A religious institution, thus,
includes a Samadhi. When it is established or maintained for public purpose
together with a temple, it would indisputably come within the purview of the
said definition of the said terms. (Para 25( (773-E) B
1.8. The temple, therefore, was not established as a private place of
worship by the plaintiffs or their family members but it had been established
--1
with the help extended by the disciples and members of the public. The factum
of issuance of pamphlets or entry tickets, as noticed by the High Court, had
not been denied or disputed by Plaintiff No.2 in his reply in response to the C
notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The conduct of the parties in not
even denying the said letters containing certain vital admissions on their part
would, thus, clearly go to show that the judgment of the High Court does not
suffer from any infirmity. Rule of estoppel in a case of this nature would be
_clearly applicable. Even otherwise, the principle of estoppel shall apply in this D
case. [Paras 30 and 35) [774-D, E, F; 776-F)
State of W.B. v. Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur, (2006) 7 SCC 490,
relied on.
Hodgson and Ors. v. Toray Textiles Europe Ltd. and Ors,. {2006) EWHC E
2612 {Ch) and Trustee Solutions Ltd. and Ors. v. Dubery and Anr., [~007) 1
All ER308: {2006) EWHC 1426 (Cb), referred to.
2.1. In the instant case, the dedication was made even according to the
appellants long back. Constructions for residential purposes were made
thereafter. It is not a case where the dedication of the property occurred F
subsequent to the constructions of the residential houses. It is also not a case
where the idol was installed inside the residential premises. [Para 41)
Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, (1956) SCR 756; Bihar State of Board of
Religious Trusts v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Choudhary, (1974) 2 sec 288; State G
of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi, [1959) Supp (2) SCR 601; Goswami Shri
Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas, [1969] 2 SCC 853 and Bihar
State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, [1971) 1
sec 574, referred to.
2.2. Merely because the appellant has a residential house in the portion H
:J66 SVPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
A of the property which is the subject matter of the trust, the same is not outside 1
the purview of the Act. !Para 421 (779-EI
CIVL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2000.
From the Judgment/Order dated 19.8.1998 of the High Court of A.P. at
B Hyderabad in Appeal No. 667/87.
M.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ramesh, Vismai, and B.Y. Niren
for the Appellant.
,_
Manoj Saxena, Rahul Shukla, and T.V. George for the Respondents. )..
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. I. One Gedela Appala Swamy Naidu was owner of a
piece of land measuring 81 x 70 sq. yards situated in a secluded locality on
the hills situated at village Simhachalam. He died leaving behind him his wife
D Atchamamba and son G. Satchidananda Murthy (Plaintiff No. 1). He was
buried in the same property. A Samadhi was constructed thereon by his son.
Plaintiff No. l shifted his residence at the said property. In or about 1976, he
installed statutes of Appala Swamy Naidu and Shri Veera Bhoja Vasantha
Rayalu who was the guru of his father. The Guru of Appala Swamy Naidu and °'(
Appala Swamy Naidu himself had a large number of disciples. The idol of
E Godess Gayatri Devi was also installed. It was named as "Sri Sirnha Saila Puri
Virat Guru Mandiram" and "Sri Simha Saila Puri Gayatri Peetam".
2. Allegedly, after the death of Appala Swamy Naidu, the said property
was being managed by his brother Suryanarayana Naidu. When Smt.
F Atchamamba, wife of Appala Swamy Naidu died in the year 1979, her dead
body was buried by the side of her husband in the same compound. A tomb
was also constructed.
,.,...
3. A notice was issued by Respondent No. I as to why the plaintiffs
should not apply for registration of the temple/ institution as a public institution
G within the meaning of Sections 38 and 39 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short "the Act").
4. An application was filed before Respondent No-. I for deletion of the
said institution from the list of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions ~ .
and Endowment. The said application was dismissed by an order dated
H 14.12.1982. In arriving at the said decision, a large number of documents as
G00E1.ASATCHIDANA!lo'DA MURTHY (D_l BY LRS. •.DY COMMSR, ENDOWME!lo'TS DEPTL AP [S.B SINHA. 11 767
also a report of the Assistant Commissioner Endowments. Anakapalli and A
statements of some persons including one Satyanarayana, the first cousin of
the original Plaintiff No. I, were taken into consideration.
5. A suit was filed by the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section
78 of the Act. By a judgment and order dated 31.12.1984, the said suit was
decreed. Respondents filed a first appeal before the High Court of Andhra B
Pradesh. The said appeal has been allowed by reason of the impugned
judgment.
_.
~
6. Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, in support of the appeal raised the following contentions:
c
(i) The term "religious institution" as defined in Section 2(22) of the
Act would not bring within its purview a place where burial had
taken place and tombs were constructed.
(ii) The order of the Deputy Commissioner is a nullity being violative
of the principles of natural justice. D
(iii) In view of the fact that the District Judge had inspected the
property personally and recorded his observations, the High
Court should not have interfered therewith.
(iv) No member of the pubiic having been examined by the
respondents to prove public participation in the affairs of the E
trust nor the public character thereof havi~ been proved, the
High Court committed an error in arriving at its findings.
(v) Plaintiff No. I having not undertaken preaching of any religious
tenets to disciples and the suit property being not a place of
worship for the general public but one for the family, it should F
-·
"Y
have been held to be a private institution.
(vi) The purported admission of G. Satyanarayana, at whose instance
the litigation had started, could not have been relied upon by the
High Court.
G
7. Mr. Manoj Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State,
however, would support the impugned judgment.
I';.
8. Before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties as noticed
hereinbefore, we may notice some of the relevant prnvisions of the Act.
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.
A 9. The terms "religious institution" and "temple" as defined in Sections
2(22) and 2(26) of the Act read as under:
"(22) 'religious institution' means a math, temple or specific endowment
and includes a Brindavan, Samadhi or any other institution established
or maintained for a religious purpose;
B
(26) 'temple' means a place by whatever designation known, used as
a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit
of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof
as place of public religious worship and includes sub-shrines, utsava
mantapas, tanks and other necessary appurtenant structures and
·-
c land;"
[Emphasis supplied]
I 0. Section 77 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of the De)?uty
Commissioner to decide the dispute inter alia in regard to the nature of
D endowment, viz., whether it is private or public. The decision of the Deputy
Commissioner is required to be published. A suit may be filed in a civil court
by a person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner.
11. The dedication was made in the year 1976. Not only the plaintiffs,
as would appear from the evidences brought on record but also the public
E had also made contributions for construction of the property in question. For
the purpose of entering into the temple, tickets used to be sold. A Hundi
meant for public donation was also installed. A Medical Unit meant for the
visiting public was found to have been set up there. A hall was constructed
within the premises of the institution known as Gita Bhawan.
F
12. While applying for water connection, admittedly, the plaintiffs
categorically declared that the same was necessary for the visiting public and
not for any domestic purpose. An inspection was made and it was found that
the temple used to be visited regularly and the average number of visitors per
day was about 30 to 40. Regular pujas are also held in the said temple.
G
13. Before entering into the factual controversy, we may notice the legal
position. Mr. Rao raised a contention that Hindu Law does not recognize
dedication of any property for construction of Samadhi or tomb as charitable
or religious purpose.
H 14. In Saraswathi Ammal and Anr v. Rajagopal Ammal, [1954] SCR 277
GODEi.A SATCHIDANANDA MURTHY (0) BY LRS. v. DY. COMMNR., ENDOWMENTS DEPTI., A.P. {S.B. SINHA, J.J 769
't- the question as to whether worship at the Samadhi of a person would be valid A
under Hindu Law came up for consideration. It was held that dedication must
have a Shastraic basis. While, however, saying so, it was noticed that there
are instances where Hindu Saints had been worshipped and entombed. The
Court proceeded on the basis that "Their Lordships were aware about the
dedication of property on such tombs amongst Hindus". It was, however,
observed: B
" .... Such cases, if they arise, may conceivably stand on a different
footing from the case of an ordinary private individual who is entombed
-. and worshipped thereat. The case reported as The Board of
~
Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.
Pidugu Narasimham and Ors., has also been referred to. It is a
c
somewhat curious case furnishing an instance where images of as
many as 66 heroes who were said to have been killed in a war between
two neighbouring kingdoms in the 13th century were installed in a
regular temple and systematically worshipped by the public for several
centuries and inam grants therefor made during the Moghul period. D
With reference to the facts of that case, the learned Judges were
inclined to hold that the worship was religious. This, however, is a
case of a grant from a sovereign authority and in any case is not an
endowment for worship of a tomb. In the three Madras cases in which
it was held that the perpetual dedication of property by a Hindu for
performance of worship at a tomb was not valid, there was no
E
suggestion that there was any widely accepted practice of raising
tombs and worshipping thereat and making endowments therefor in
the belief as to the religious merit acquired thereby"
Therein a specific averment had been made in the plaint that institution of the
F
Samadhi and ceremonies connected with it were not usual in the community
to which the parties belonged.
y
15. In Malayammal and Ors v. A. Malayalam Pillai and Ors., [1991]
Supp 2 SCC 579, a three-Judge Bench of this Court opined:
G
"12. The perpetual dedication of property for construction of a samadhi
or a tomb over the mortal remains of an ordinary person and the
making of provisions for its maintenance and for performing ceremonies
;;- in connection thereto however, has not been recognised as charitable
or religious purpose among the Hindus. But the samadhi of a saint
stands on a different footing. This was the consistent view taken by H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
A the Madras High Court in several cases, namely, C. Kunhamutty v. T.
Ahmad Musa/iar A. Draiviasundaram Pillai v. and N. Subramania
Pillai, Veluswami Goundan v. Dandapani 6 . This Court in Saraswathi
Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal has approved those decisions of the
Madras High Court. Jagannatha Das, J., who spoke for the court said
(at p. 289): "We see no reason to think that the Madras decisions are
B erroneous in holding that perpetual dedication ofproperty for worship
at a tomb is not valid amongst Hindus."" [Emphasis supplied]
16. In Committee ofManagement ofInstitution known as Bodendraswami
C
Mutt by its managing member N. Ganesa Iyer v. President of Board of
Commrs.for Hindu Religious endowments, AIR (1954) Madras 1027, whereupon
·-
Mr. Rao relied upon, the High Court stated:
"5. Sri Ramachandran on behalf of the Commissioner for Religious
Endowments supports the lower Court on the strength of-'Ratnavelu
Mudaliar v. Commr. for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments',
D AIR (1954) Mad 398 (G). That was indeed the case of an ancient
institution which originated in a samadhi. Though it continued to
retain traces of its origin and guru-pooja was performed in the precincts
the same learned Bench Rajmannar C. J. arid Venkatarama Aiyar J.
confirming a judgment of Krishnaswami Naydu J. also on the original
side of the High Court, held it to be a temple within the scope of
E Section 9(12). The facts of that case were however peculiar and different
from those in the present case. So long ago as 7-8-1860 the Government
made a grant in favour of Chidambaraswami, who founded that
institution. He was described as the founder of the "Apparswami
pagoda" and not of the "Apparswami Samadhi". Since then, it was
treated admittedly in various proceedings as a temple. The facts of
F
that case can easily be differentiated from the present one in which a
claim is made for the first time that this admitted samadhi has now
evolved into a temple. In that decision, the following observations of
Varada-chariar J. in-'Board of Commrs. for the Hindu Religious
Endowments v. P. Narasimham, AIR (1939) Mad 134 (H) were quoted
G with approval.
"That what the evidence in this case describes as taking place in
connection with the institution is public worship can admit of no
doubt. We think it is also religious. The test is not whether it conforms
to any particular school ofAgama Sastras; we think that the question
H must be decided with reference to the view of the class ofpeople who
GOOELA SATCHIDA.NANDA MURTHY (01 BY LRS. "· DY. COMMNR.. ENOOV..'MENTS OEPTI'.. A.P. jS.8. SINHA. J.I 771
... take part in the worship. If they believe in its religious efficacy, in A
the sense that by such worship, they are making themselves the
object of the bounty of some superhuman power, it must be regarded
as a religious worship.
..
Even if this very broad test were to be applied to the present case,
I am not prepared to hold that the mere presence of some idols and B
the festivals, which have grown round the samadhi of Bodendra-
' swami, inevitable in the case of all tombs of saints and great men in
this country, would bring it within the definition of a temple as defined
'- -.
~
in Section 9 (12 ). For these reasons, I would set aside the order of the
District Judge and hold that this institution is not a public temple as
defined in Section 9(12) of the Act."
c
17. Religious practices vary from State to State, region to region, place
,•
to place and sect to sect. When the legislature makes a legislation, the
existing state of affairs and the basis on which such legislation has been made
would be presumed to have been known to it. Whereas the property for D
construction of a Samadhi or tomb by itself may not amount to a permanent
dedication involving public character of such institution, a distinction must
be borne in mind about a tomb constructed on the Samadhi of an ordinary
man and a saintly person. In a case falling within the latter category, the
answer to the question, in our opinion, should be rendered in the aflmnative.
E
18. Ordinarily, even the body of an ordinary Hindu would not be buried.
It would be cremated. The very fact that the brother of the appellant
Suryanarayana Naidu was not buried there is itself a pointer to show that the
same was not a family custom. Plaintiffs themselves while referring to burial
of Smt. Acthamamba stated that she was an illiterate and had no religious
inclination at all. No such statement had been made in respect of her husband F
and others who have been buried. Plaintiffs were, therefore, aware of the said
Mo.
distinction.
19. In Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of Rajasthan and
Ors., [1964] I SCR 561, Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for a Constitution Bench, G
- in a matter relating to the famous Nathdwara Temple where the denomination
in question did not recognize the existence of 'Sadhus' or 'Swamis' other than
the descendants of 'Vallabha', and no other ritualistic practices were adopted
and where the cult did not believe in celibacy as well as did not regard that
giving up worldly pleasures and the ordinary mode of a house-holder's life
were essential for spiritual progress, opined: H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.
A "The question as to whether a Hindu temple is private or public has
often heel} considered by judicial decisions. A temple belonging to a
family which is a private temple is not unknown to Hindu law. In the
case of a private temple it is also not unlikely that the religious
reputation of the founder may be of such a high order that the private
temple founded by him may attract devotees in large numbers and the
B mere fact that a large number of devotees are allowed to worship in
the temple would not necessarily make the private temple a public
temple. On the other hand, a public temple can be built by subscriptions
c
raised by the public and a deity installed to enable all the members
of the public to offer worship. In such a case, the temple would clearly
be a public temple. Where evidence in regard to the foundation of the
·- --
temple is not clearly available, sometimes, judicial decisions rely on
certain other facts which are treated as relevant. Is the temple built in
such an imposing manner that it may prima facie appear to be a public
temple? The appearance of the temple of course cannot be a decisive
factor; at best it may be a relevant factor. Are the members of the
D public entitled to an entry in the temple? Are they entitled to take part
in offering service and taking Darshan in the temple,? Are the members
of the public entitled to the take part in the festivals and ceremonies
arranged in the temple? Are their offerings accepted as a matter of
right? The participation of the member of the public in the Darshan
E in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the celebrations
of festival occasions. may be a very important factor to consider in
determining, the character of the temple. In the present proceedings,
no such evidence has been led and it is, therefore, not shown that
admission to the temple is controlled or regulated or that there are
other factors present which indicate clearly that the temple is a private
F temple. Therefore, the case for the Tilkayat cannot rest on, any such
considerations which, if proved, may have helped to establish either
.'
that the temple is private or is public."
20. It was, therefore, clearly not a case where Shastraic basis was held
to be the sine qua non for the purpose of arriving at a decision that the
G institution in question would fall within the purview of the terms 'religious
and charitable institution' or not. -
21. In Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa, owner of Shri Vithal
Rukhamai Sansthan v. The Charity Commissioner, State of Bombay, [1976]
H 2 SCC 417, this Court opined that while each case of endowment as to the
GODELA SATCHIDANANDA MUR.TifY (D) BY LRS. v. DY. COMMNR.. ENOOWMENTS DEPTT.. A.P. (S.8. SINHA. J.I 773
character of temple would depend on the history, tradition and facts, the A
presence of the features enumerated therein may be held to be sufficient to
hold that the same satisfies the tests which were required to be fulfilled in
arriving at a decision that the temple in question was a public trust.
22. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that only because members
of the public are freely admitted to the temple, that by itself would not be B
sufficient to come to the conclusion that the temple was a public institution.
23. In Hari Bhanu Maharaj of Baroda v. Charity Commissioner,
Ahmedabad, (1986] 4 SCC 162, upon which again Mr. Rao relied upon, the
~
question as to whether the members of the public had visited the Mandir as
invitees and nothing more was held to be dependant upon the facts and
c
circumstances of each case.
24. In view of the fact that members of the public could visit the temple
only on payment of some amount is itself indicative of the fact that they could
do so as of right. It has been found as of fact that there used to be regular
D
visitors in the temple. They would not only pay their obeisance to the great
men who had been buried there but also offer pujas at the temple. It has also
been found as of fact that various types of pujas were being performed by
the public at the temple on payment. Pamphlets had been issued by the
plaintiffs themselves for the aforementioned purpose. The said pamphlets
were marked as Exs. B-7 and B-8. E
25. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Act itself recognizes Samadhi.
A religious institution, thus, includes a Samadhi. When it is established or
maintained for public purpose together with a temple, it would indisputably
come within the purview of the said definition of the said terms.
F
26. The learned District Judge in his judgment had observed that no
single member of public was examined as a witness. We fail to understand the
~-
said approach of the learned Judge as the plaintiffs in the suit were questioning
a quasi - judicial order passed by a statutory authority, and, thus, nothing
prevented them from doing so to prove the contrary. The learned District
G
Judge has also found that the evidences clearly establish that the institution,
to some extent, has appearance of a temple and in addition to the temple, there
is Samadhi of the father of Plaintiff No. 1.
27. The conduct of the appellant cannot also be lost sight of. Shri
Gedela Suryanarayana had written a letter dated 14.01.1972 (Ex. B-16) wherein, H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.
A while asking for water connection, it was categorically stated:
" ....... Moreover, this Mathalayam is purely being maintained as per the
Hindu Religious mythology for the devotees of God but not for the
use of any domestic purposes. Therefore, I earnestly request that free
water supply through water tap may kindly be accorded and sanctioned
B without the question of any water reading meter to this Mathalayam"
28. He reiterated the aforementioned stand in his letter dated 22.05.1975.
29. Yet again by a letter dated 25.01.1978, Plaintiff No. 2 stated:
..
'•
c "The above named Matalayam was established long ago on the Up-
hill, Simhachalam with the kind help extended by the disciples and
devotees for preaching philosophical teachings according to Hindu
Mythology.
Due to non-availability of drinking water in the above Mathalayam,
D the devotees attending there are undergoing lot of inconvenience."
30. These admissions on the part of the plaintiffs had rightly been held
to be relevant by the High Court for determining the question. The temple,
therefore, was not established as a private place of worship by the plaintiffs
or their family members but it had been established with the help extended
E by the disciples and members of the public. The factum of issuance of
pamphlets or entry tickets, as noticed by the High Court, had not been denied
or disputed by Plaintiff No. 2 in his reply dated 26.12.1978 in response to the
notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The conduct of the parties in not
even denying the said letters containing certain vital admissions on their part
would, thus, clearly go to show that the judgment of the High Court does not
F suffer from any infirmity. Rule of estoppel in a case of this nature would be
clearly applicable. .
"(
.
31. In Hodgson & Ors v. Toray Textiles Europe Ltd & Ors., (2006)
EWHC 2612 (Ch), it was stated:
G "The essential ingredients of estoppel by representation are that:
(i) A has made a clear and unequivocal representation to B about his
legal rights, intending it to be acted upon;
;\
(ii) B has acted in reliance on that representation and
H
OOOELA SATCHIDANANDA MURTIN (D) BY LR.S. "· DY COMMNR., ENDOWMENTS DEm.. A.P. (S_B. SINHA. J.I 775
(iii) It would be inequitable for A to resile from the representation he A
has made."
32. In Trustee Solutions Ltd & Ors. v. Dubery & Anr., (2007] I All ER
308 : (2006) EWHC 1426 (Ch)], it was stated:
"Group estoppel binds all beneficiaries under the trust, as well as the B
trustees and the company.
The principle
., The principle on which Miss Rich relies is that formulated by Lord
~
Denning MR in Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v. Texas-
Commerce International Bank Ltd, (1982) I QB 84, 121:
c
"If parties to a contract, by their course of dealing, put a particular
interpretation on the terms of it--0n the faith of which each of them-
to the knowledge of the other-acts and conducts their mutual
affairs-they are bound by that interpretation just as much as if they
D
had written it down as being a variation of the contract. There is no
need to inquire whether their particular interpretation is correct or
not-or whether they were mistaken or not-or whether they had in
,.. mind the original terms or not. Suffice it that they have, by their
course of dealing, put their own interpretation o~ their contract,
and cannot be allowed to go back on it. "" E
33. In Mukherjee on Indian Trust Act, page 177, it is st{lted:
"The essential conditions to attract the application of the cy pres
doctrine are:
(i) the donor (rather the testator) must clearly evidence a general
F
intention of charity when the particular charitable disposition cannot
be carried into effect, the Court, in order that the general charitable
intention may not be disappointed, makes a cy pres application of the
fund and applies it to a purpose which coincides as nearly as possible
with the object that has failed; G
(ii) there must be a failure of the particular object of charity as specified
by the testator, or there must be a surplus left after satisfying the
particular purpose;
(iii) the court should choose such objects as are akin to the object
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R.
A that had failed;
(iv) the gift or trust must be by Will and not by a deed inter vivos
(by case Jaw)."
34. In State of W.B. v. Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur, [2006] 7 SCC
B 490, this Court opined:
"15. In order to ascertain whether a trust is private, the following
factors are relevant:
(I) If the beneficiaries are ascertained individuals.
C (2) If the grant has been made in favour of an individual and not in
favour of a deity.
(3) The temple is situated within the campus of the residence of the
donor.
D (4) If the revenue records or entries suggest the land being in
possession of an individual and not in the deity. On the other hand
an inference can be drawn that the temple along with the properties
attached to it is a public trust:
(1) If the public visit the temple as of right.
E (2) If the endowment is in the name of the deity.
(3) The beneficiaries are the public.
(4) If the management is made through the agency of the public or the
accounts of the temple are being scrutinised by the public."
F
35. Even otherwise, the principle of estoppel shall apply in this case. . .
36. The question, however, which remains is as to whether the idol
having been installed in the residential premises should be held to be a part
of the charitable and religious institution. Each case, as is well-known, will
G depend upon the factual matrix obtaining therein. We may in this behalfnotice
some decisions which are operating in the field.
37. In Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, [1956) SCR 756, this Court opined:
"Firstly, there is the fact that the idol was installed not within the
H precincts of residential quarters but in a separate building constructed
GODELA SATCHIDANANDA MURTHY <0) BY LRS. ~.DY COMMNR. ENOOWMENTS DEPTT.. A.P. !SB. SINHA. J.J 777
~ for that very purpose on a vacant site. And as pointed out in Delroos A
Banoo Begum v. Nawab Syud Ashgur Ally Khan it is a factor to be
taken into account in dee iding whether an endowment is private or
public, whether the place of worship is located inside a private house
or a public building. Secondly, it is admitted that some of the idols are
permanently installed on a pedestal within the temple precincts. That
is more consistent with the endowment being public rather than private. B
Thirdly, the puja in the temple is performed by an archaka appointed
from time to time."
...... [See also Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts v. Bhubneshwar Prasad
Choudhary, (1974] 2 SCC 288]
c
38. In State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi, (1959] Supp 2 SCR 601, while
referring to Deoki Nandan (supra), it was observed:
"In Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar this Court considered the principles
of law applicable to a determination of the question whether an
endowment is public or private, and observed:
D
• "The cardinal point to be decided is whether it was the intention of
the founder that specified individuals are to have the right of worship
at the shrine, or the general public or any specified portion thereof.
In accordance with this theory, it has been held that when property
E
is dedicated for the worship of a family idol, it is a private and not
a public endowment, as the persons who are entitled to worship at the
shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family, and that
is an ascertained group of individuals. But where the beneficiaries are
not members of a family or a specified individual, then the en dowment
can only be regarded as public, intended to benefit the general body F
..... of worshippers."
')"
One of the facts which was held in that case to indicate that the
endowment was public was that the idol was installed not within the
precincts of residential quarters but in a separate building constructed
for that very purpose on a vacant site. We do not suggest that such G
a fact is by itself decisive of the question. The fact that the temple
is outside the dwelling house is only a circumstance in favour of it
1':- being regarded a public temple, particularly in Madras (except Malabar);
there are, however, private temples in Bengal which are built outside
the residential houses of donors (see the Hindu Law of Religious and
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R.
..
~
A Charitable Trust, Tagore Law Lectures by the late Dr B.K. Mukherjea.
1952 Edn., p. 188). In the case before us, the two temples were
constructed outside the residential quarters, but that is only one of
the relevant circumstances. We must construe the deed of trust with
reference to all its clauses and so construed, we have no doubt that
the trusts imposed constitute a public endowment. There is one other
B point to be noticed in this connection. The deed of trust in the
present case is in the English fonn and the settlor has transferred the
properties to trustees who are to hold them for certain specific purposes
of religion and charity; that in our opinion is not decisive but is
nevertheless a significant departure from the mode a private religious
·-
.f
c endowment is commonly made."
39. In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas, (1969]
2 SCC 853, this Court held:
•
"I I. Yet another contention taken on behalf of the appellant is that
D the architecture of the building in which Gokulnathji is housed and
the nature of that building is such as to show that it is not a public
temple. It was urged that that building does not possess any of the
characteristics of a Hindu temple. It has not even a dome. This
contention again has lost much of its force in view of the decision of 'f
this Court referred to earlier. Evidence establishes that Vallabha's son
E and his immediate success?r Vithaleshwar had laid down a plan for the
construction of temples by the Vallabha Sampra-dayees. He did not
approve the idea of constructing rich and costly buildings for temples.
Evidently he realised that religious temple buildings were not safe
under the Mohammedan rule. For this reaso.n he advised his followers
to construct temples of extremely simple type. The external view of
F
those temples gave the appearance of dwelling houses. It appears to .....
be a common feature of the temples belonging to the Vallabha
"(
Sampradayees that the ground-floor is used as the place of worship
and the first floor as the residence of Goswami Maharaj. Therefore the
fact that Gokulnathji temple at Nadiad had the appearance of a
G residential house does not in any manner militate against the contention
that the temple in question is a public temple."
40. In Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar ~
Das, (1971] I SCC 574, it was stated:
H "20. An attempt appears to have been made in the trial court to
GODaA SATCHIDANASDA MURTHY (0) BY LRS. ~- DY COMMNR. ENDOWMENTS OEPTT. A.P IS B SINHA, J.J 779
establish that certain ceremonies, such as Sankalpa, Pratistha and A
Utsarga, were performed at the time when idols were installed in the
temple. In the case of temples Pratistha and not Utsarga, if established,
would indicate dedication to the public. (See Kane's History of
Dharmasastras, Vol. 2, Part II, 892 to 893 and Deoki Nandan v.
Murlidhar). Unfortunately for the appellant Board, there was no clear B
evidence of the particular ceremonies performed at the time when
Gaibi Ramdasji installed the idols except a general statement from the
respondent that when idols are installed in temples Pran Pratistha is
""I. generally performed. Support for a dedication to the public was also
)- sought from the fact that the idols were installed permanently on a
pedestal (Sinhasan) and the temple was constructed on grounds C
separate from the residential quarters of the Mahant. In the first place,
such factors are also found in private temples and Mutts, and therefore,
are not conclusive. In the second place, there was the evidence that
the Mahant's residential quarters are in fact not separate from the
temple premises."
D
41. In the instant case, the dedication was made even according to the
appellants long back. Constructions for residential purposes were made
thereafter. It .is not a case where the dedication of the property occurred
subsequent to the constructions of the residential houses. It is also not a
case where the idol was installed inside the residential premises.
E
42. We, therefore, in view of the decisions of this Court, are of the
opinion that merely because the appellant has a residential house in the
portion of the property which is the subject matter of the trust, the same is
not outside the purview of the Act.
43. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal
F
" ·· which is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
~ there shall be no order as to costs.
S.KS. Appeal dismissed.
G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public religious institution"Sign in to search